ijohnb

November 30th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^

Michigan should not be in the College Football Playoff.  I disagree with that article and think it is ridiculous.  Schedule 2 college football powers in the pre-conference (Bama, OSU, Mich, Auburn, Clemson, etc.), go on the road and beat them and we will talk.  Don't give me Northwestern and undefeated in the MAC. Take your Sugar Bowl and be thrilled with it.

MI Expat NY

November 30th, 2016 at 11:38 AM ^

I think this undersells a bit what they have accomplished.  No matter the competition, it is hard to win every week.  Most middle of the pack and below P5 schools would drop a game playing a full MAC schedule (a fair number dropped a game to a G5 school despite only having one or two on the schedule).  And the majority of P5 schools have dropped a game to a Northwestern equivalent.  Western being 12-0 doesn't show they are top 5 or even top 10, but, I think it makes them about top 20.  

Squader

November 30th, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^

I grew up a WMU fan (really!) in Kalamazoo and agree with you 100%. No way Western should even be considered for a spot in the playoff. The fact that G5 teams have a road to a major bowl like the Cotton Bowl is actually a huge upgrade over previous decades in terms of fairness, and as Northern Illinois showed in that Orange Bowl game, it's probably as high as any such teams deserve to be. 

Now if WMU goes out next year and beats USC and MSU in their non-conference before wiping the floor with the MAC, and MSU somehow returns to 9-3 form, then sure, consider giving them a playoff spot over a 2-loss team. But beating Illinois, Northwestern, and the MAC is not at all compelling.

I will be watching the MAC championship game and would love to see them in the Cotton Bowl, but will feel not a shred of sadness over the lack of playoff consideration. If you thought MSU had it rough against Alabama...

Brodie

November 30th, 2016 at 12:21 PM ^

I agree with this. Having guaranteed access to the NY6 is a huge thing for programs in the G5. Western going off to the Cotton Bowl to play against a highly ranked Wisconsin team or whatever is going to be great for them and their complaints fall mostly on deaf ears. 

If the writer wanted to argue that we should have a 16 team playoff with autobids like they do in FCS, I'd listen. I'd disagree but I would listen. Arguing WMU belongs in a 4 team playoff, though, is asinine. 

Blueblood2991

November 30th, 2016 at 11:05 AM ^

Yeah, but Northwestern was a 10 win team last year.  Western had MSU and OSU last year. They have MSU and USC on the schedule for next year. 

It's not for lack of trying to schedule good teams. Similar to how Michigan ended up with a strong SOS this year when it looked to be weak. Things change, and there's nothing you can do about it when you have to schedule years away.

No they don't deserve a playoff spot, but don't make it seem like they're afraid to play good competition.

MI Expat NY

November 30th, 2016 at 11:29 AM ^

If Houston hadn't gone and choked away some AAC games, they would have been the true test for G5 schools.  Wins over a possible Big 12 champ and the second place ACC team plus running the table probably should have been enough to get them in.  But you're right, a G5 school, especially one from the MAC, has to put a couple real pelts on the wall to have a shot.  

oriental andrew

November 30th, 2016 at 11:35 AM ^

if they want to be taken seriously, they can't be playing teams like N. Carolina Central (Sagarin #194) and Georgia Southern (Sagarin #104). At least schedule teams like East Carolina, Memphis, Tulsa, and Houston, if not the likes of Kentucky, Miss St, Wake Forest/Duke, and UCF. Not the best teams out there, but probably some geographic overlap with where they're trying to recruit. 

ole luther

November 30th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^

IF there were a 16 team playoff.....there wouldn't be so many if's.

week 1 - 16 become 8

week 2 -  8 become 4

week 3 - 4 become 2

how hard is that?

I don't want to hear about teams ranked 17th or 18th. get over yourself. Learn to play foooosebawl just a little bit better and be ranked 16th next year.

Alton

November 30th, 2016 at 11:09 AM ^

The Sugar will be awful, with a 4-loss SEC team against the Oklahoma-Oklahoma State winner, but the G5 team is locked into the Cotton Bowl this year, likely against a Pac 12 team (Colorado or possibly USC).

ijohnb

November 30th, 2016 at 11:20 AM ^

the Cotton Bowl.  But assuming Washington makes the Playoff, how do you figure a PAC 12 to the Cotton Bowl?  The runner up would go to the Rose Bowl and PAC 12 is not getting 3 teams into the NY 6. 

Alton

November 30th, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^

So who are the 12 teams?  5 confrerence champs plus G5 are automatic.  Michigan and Ohio State are in.  That's 8.  ACC & SEC must each have a non-champion to fulfill commitments.  That's 10.  A second P12 team (Colorado-Washington loser or USC) is #11.

So who is the 12th?  You pretty much are left with a 3rd ACC team (ie, both Louisville & Florida State), a 4th B1G team (the Wisconsin-Penn State loser), a 3rd P12 team (ie, both USC and the Colorado-Washington loser), or a 2nd B12 team (the Oklahoma-Oklahoma State loser).

So...let's say the favorites all win Saturday.  We get something like this:

1-Alabama (IN)

2-Clemson (IN)

3-Ohio State (IN)

4-Washington (IN)

5-Wisconsin (IN-B1G Champ)

6-Michigan (IN-Orange Bowl)

7-Oklahoma (IN-B12 Champ)

8-Penn State [Cotton?]

9-USC (IN-Rose Bowl)

10-Colorado [Cotton?]

11-Louisville (IN-Orange Bowl)

12-Florida State [Cotton?]

13-Oklahoma State [Cotton?]

14-Auburn (IN-Sugar Bowl)

15-Western Michigan (IN-Cotton Bowl)

So...we end up with Wisconsin-USC in the Rose, Oklahoma-Auburn in the Sugar, Louisville-Michigan in the Orange, and Penn State in the Cotton, depending on how far they drop.  And we leave #10 Colorado, #12 Florida Sate and #13 Oklahoma State out of the NY6.

If Colorado beats UW, though, I think it would pretty much guarantee a P12 team in the Cotton, because the B1G gets 2 of the top 4 meaning the PSU-UW loser would head to the Orange.

ijohnb

November 30th, 2016 at 11:58 AM ^

just one note, because I kind of agree with you now about the PAC 12.  The CFP committee moved FSU ahead of Louisville, so right now it looks like we would be headed to the Orange to play FSU.  (If not the Rose - If Washington loses and Wisconsin wins, perhaps moving them into the playoff, and they drop PSU out of the NY 6, I think Michigan v. Washington in the Rose becomes possible as well).

Alton

November 30th, 2016 at 12:46 PM ^

Ah!  You are of course correct--swap those 2 teams.  Thanks.

EDIT:  I have been assuming Clemson over VT (pretty safe, but you never know).  Clemson's backup game is absolutely the Cotton Bowl--VT wins, VT to the Orange automatically and Clemson to the Cotton, because that's the only place they can end up.

ijohnb

November 30th, 2016 at 8:10 PM ^

Virginia Tech is the only team that I don't want to play out of all the teams we have discussed. That should be called the Been There Done That Bowl if we play them. That game would have no hook.

BassDude138

November 30th, 2016 at 11:20 AM ^

Agree as it stands now with a four team playoff, no way. They are not better than the best power 5 schools. However, if they would ever expand to an eight team playoff, then I think we could start to see cases where the top group of five team could be given a shot to play with the big boys.

 

A Lot of Milk

November 30th, 2016 at 10:50 AM ^

Their argument is that G5 teams beat P5 teams all the time but only cite OK State losing to Central? When that play shouldn't even have been allowed? OK State is not Alabama, and Alabama is who Western would be playing.

lhglrkwg

November 30th, 2016 at 11:12 AM ^

That guy basically built his entire argument off the Oklahoma State-Central game and USC getting blasted by Alabama.

The real reason Western isn't getting included is because everyone knows most or all of the top 25 would go 12-0 or 11-1 against that schedule. G5 teams wanting to play at the big table to go to top teams

mgowild

November 30th, 2016 at 10:57 AM ^

Unless (until?) the playoffs expand to 8 teams, the best G5 team is always going to "get the shaft"... if you equate the chance to play a strong Power 5 team in a NY6 bowl with getting the shaft.



Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, and Western Michigan... one of these teams is not like the others.



 

Hail_Yes

November 30th, 2016 at 10:55 AM ^

Western is a good team who is certainly worthy of a New Year's Six bowl, and if they finish undefeated and don't make a New Year's Six bowl it would be an atrocity, but to suggest that they're one of the top 4 teams in the country is ridiculous.  It would be even worse for football if the committee put them in the playoff because they would get embarassed on a national stage.

Alton

November 30th, 2016 at 11:06 AM ^

Why would you have a rule that basically said, "take the best 7 teams in the nation, plus 1 team not nearly as good as those 7"?  Why not instead have a rule "take the best 8 teams in the nation"? 

If Western Michigan or Navy were one of the top 8, it would be obvious by watching them.  They are not. 

Squader

November 30th, 2016 at 11:22 AM ^

For the same reason that Prairie View gets to play in the NCAA basketball tournament if they win the SWAC instead of the #9 Big Ten team - it's the "national" championship because everyone has a shot. Including everyone adds to the legitimacy of the title, makes games in every conference more interesting, and allows the chance for cinderella to see whether she stacks up.

And one generally needn't feel too bad for team #8. Assume the current rankings hold and Washington beats Colorado - would you really be crying for Colorado if they got passed over for an undefeated G5 team? Maybe don't lose three games if you want to be in the playoff.

You could also have some criteria on it - the G5 champ needs to be rated in top 20 by CFP or have no G5 losses or something. Avoid a 9-3 Boise team getting in just because someone has to.

 

Alton

November 30th, 2016 at 11:39 AM ^

"Maybe don't lose three games if you want to be in the playoff." Okay, that isn't unfair, but I would respond "Maybe actually be in the top 8 if you want to be in the playoff." 

If you decide we don't want the best teams, fine--the NCAA does that in many sports, as you point out.  But say that up front:  "We are sick of only seeing the best teams in the playoff, let's invite pretty good ones that we feel sorry for instead."

Squader

November 30th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^

Well, this gets to why I think 4 and 8 are very different qualitatively. 4 means leaving out a P5 conference (or 2). 8 gets to the point where you're now taking Colorado. So if we're gonna expand to the point that we have to give the Colorados a shot, I think it would be much more interesting to give that spot to an undefeated G5 team. Like I said, there could be some criteria on it. But why would I want to watch 3-loss Colorado in the playoff over seeing just how good an undefeated G5 team is?

Edit: To put it more clearly, once you're down to the #8 team it's no longer obvious to me that those teams are unequivocally better than the best G5 in a good year and thus untenable to blanket exclude the G5 teams by fiat.

jmblue

November 30th, 2016 at 11:45 AM ^

I don't want college basketball to be a model for football here.  The NCAA Tournament is fun, but it's massively watered down the regular season in importance.  I have no desire to watch non-Big Ten teams play regular-season basketball, and I consider myself a fairly big Michigan basketball fan.  

I never want to see the college football season be diluted like that.  Part of what's special is that there is something riding on each week's game.  If that means no Group of 5 teams in the final four, I can live with that.

Squader

November 30th, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^

If we're assuming an 8-team playoff, then reducing the P5 spots to 7 actually keeps more stakes in the regular season than saving a spot for the #2/#3/#4 team from a P5 conference. And of course it makes the regular season games of all 63 G5 teams suddenly meaningful in a way they are not when none of those teams can get a shot at the national title.

jmblue

November 30th, 2016 at 4:15 PM ^

In that case, you're expanding the number of P5 spots from four to seven.  Michigan would be a lock for the playoff and last Saturday's game wouldn't have made a difference in the national picture, except for seeding purposes.  That's a significant change.

lhglrkwg

November 30th, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^

Proportionally, NCAA basketball is about 3x as big as football at the D1-FBS level. If the basketball tournament was 12 teams, you think Prairie View A&M is sniffing a spot ever? Nope. They'd have to go almost undefeated to get in.

Conversely, if the football tournament was also about 20% of the FBS membership (like it is for D1 basketball), it would be a 24ish team tournament. Would Western get in there? Sure. Why not.

ijohnb

November 30th, 2016 at 11:24 AM ^

but if you expand it to 8, there is really not a particularly good reason not to include one of these teams.  With 4 teams, you are really biting the bullet to take one and leaving out a very deserving #4 team.  That becomes a little less of a travesty if you leave out the 8th best team to include one team from the G5.  Would they be a patsy?  Sure, but so are the 16th seeds in March Madness.  I am firmly against it with 4.  I think it becomes much more reasonable with 8, and would add a level of enjoyment watching the G5 games if you knew what was at stake.  Again, with 4, no way.  I think you could swing it with 8.

Humen

November 30th, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^

Haha this article is really bad. WMU is not the ideal standard bearer for the G5. It lacks a marquee win. SOS 83. 

It also entails the claim that WMU > UM. Do you really want to make that argument?

Go back to charging a fee to cross the bridge.

kevin holt

November 30th, 2016 at 12:25 PM ^

ESPN has their SOS at 119th, wow. But yet has their strength of record ("Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule") at 11th. Really? Seems extremely likely to me that an average top 25 team would demolish that schedule...

MI Expat NY

November 30th, 2016 at 2:06 PM ^

He's going to be even more pissed if that happens and then Navy loses its game with Army.  

Edit:  Just found out on ESPN that the G5 invite to the NY6 bowl games (likely the Cotton bowl) is going to be held open for the Navy/Army game if Navy is still in consideration.  That seems like a shitty system and would likely have a huge ripple effect for bowls with a MAC or AAC tie-in.

The Mad Hatter

November 30th, 2016 at 12:13 PM ^

“You haven’t played anyone."

“You don’t compete in a good enough conference."

“You don’t deserve to be thrown in with the best of the best."

Because all of those things are true year after year.  The butthurt is strong in that article.  Want to be taken seriously G5 teams?  Look at the current top 15 and schedule them in your non-conference asap.  Otherwise go home and get your fuckin' shine box.

Mabel Pines

November 30th, 2016 at 11:05 AM ^

but one great season doesn't mean throw everything out the window and put Western in.  If Western is mad about it, and really think they've moved on from the MAC, they need to explore their options about joining a P5 conference.  

And if they go undefeated for the next three years, then maybe they should consider leaving the MAC.

lhglrkwg

November 30th, 2016 at 11:05 AM ^

you know how many teams would go undefeated with Western's schedule? Many, many, many. If Group of 5 teams want to get a chance at the CFP then they to start playing top 25 teams without the payout. Show you actually are trying to build a tough schedule.

mgowild

November 30th, 2016 at 11:42 AM ^

That's not a fair criticism... they played MSU and OSU last year, Northwestern and Illinois this year. Northwestern was a solid win.  Illinois is not a good team, but the majority of G5 schools are going to be at a talent disadvantage when playing a Big Ten team. It's not like they're avoiding tough opponents.